Download Message in a Bottle: University Advertising

Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
DOI 10.1007/s10755-008-9085-9
Message in a Bottle: University Advertising
During Bowl Games
Michael S. Harris
Published online: 17 September 2008
# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008
Abstract Through this descriptive qualitative study of institutional advertisements aired on
television during the 2006–2007 college football bowl season, I sought to understand the
messages communicated by colleges and universities to external audiences. The findings
demonstrate the focus on selling the private benefits of higher education and call into
question the effectiveness of university marketing and branding efforts.
Key words branding . athletics . marketing
Intercollegiate athletics, particularly the sports of football and basketball, hold a powerful
place in the American psyche (Bowen and Levin 2003; Rudolph 1990; Thelin 1996).
Indeed, a safe assumption at many institutions, particularly those in the major Bowl
Championship Series (BCS) conferences, is that the head football coach and athletic
director have more name recognition than the university’s president or the most renowned
faculty member. Much of the research on elite college athletics laments the damage done to
undergraduate education (Bowen and Levin 2003; Sperber 2000), the rise of commercialism (Zimbalist 1999), and the tremendous financial drain on institutions (Bok 2003).
Although these concerns are serious ones for higher education, elite college athletics have
the potential to promote institutional identity—increasing prominence (Toma and Cross
1998), escalating prestige (Brewer et al. 2002), and creating differentiation among
otherwise often indistinguishable universities (Toma 2003).
Corporate advertisers relish the audience that American collegiate football games attract
(Gray 1996). According to the Neilson ratings, over 69 million households in the United
States watched the five BCS bowl games during the 2006–2007 season. No single
marketing strategy or effort of higher education institutions reaches the sheer number of
Michael S. Harris is Assistant Professor of Higher Education at the University of Alabama, where he also
directs the Executive Ed.D. program. He received his Ed.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. His
research explores the influence of market forces on higher education.
M. S. Harris (*)
Higher Education Program, University of Alabama, Box 870302, Tuscaloosa, 35487 AL, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
286
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
people as do televised football games. This audience represents a significant expansion
beyond traditional target groups such as potential students, alumni, and donors. During
these broadcasts, television networks typically provide the two competing universities with
a 30-second advertising spot1 to showcase their institution. Only one study has examined
the impact of these commercials on student expectations (Tobolowsky and Lowery 2006).
Marketing during football games provides an opportunity to reach a sizable portion of the
university’s external consumers and constituents, and the television audience for a sporting
event represents a wide swath of the community. As a result, commercials during these
events present a prime opportunity for institutions seeking to reach a large audience to
enhance their institutional brand (Blumenstyk 2008).
The higher education literature provides only limited evidence to understand the various
marketing strategies and tactics presently employed by colleges and universities (Kirp
2003). In the current environment, marketing strategies and the protection of image are
incredibly significant to institutions, especially those seeking greater prestige (Brewer et al.
2002; Kittle 2000). Heightened competition for students, faculty, and external resources
means that institutions are constantly battling one another with image as a key differentiator
in the marketplace. Higher education institutions receive countless proposals from
consultants to assist in brand development (Frank 2000). Yet little empirical research
exists in terms of how colleges and universities create their institutional image and brand.
My goal in this study was to understand the messages sent out by colleges and universities
during nationally televised bowl games. Specifically, I used the concept of brand
personality to examine these messages. This work provides an initial empirical glimpse
into institutional messages directed towards external audiences. The data for this study
come from an analysis of the visual, acoustic, and narrative elements of commercials that
aired during the 2006–2007 bowl season. I first review the theoretical concept of branding
from the business literature, suggesting the use of branding services as opposed to goods as
a more appropriate approach for examining higher education branding.
Branding Within Higher Education
Businesses use branding techniques to differentiate themselves from others in the marketplace
(Aaker 1991, 1996). Aaker (1991) defined a brand as a “distinguishing name and/or symbol”
(p. 7) used to identify and distinguish between competitors. Branding serves as a central tenet
of marketing because of the role it plays in helping customers decide between and among
different products (Aaker 1996). This influence over consumer choices makes the brand a
valuable organizational asset to be developed, nurtured, and protected (Grace and O’Cass
2005; Keller 2003). Whether the golden arches of McDonald’s or the “Enjoy Coca-Cola”
slogan, the importance of a brand is critical, although often intangible. The brand’s
relationship to the organization and consumers is of paramount concern to institutional
leaders because of the benefits reputation provides financially and symbolically. A strong
brand may increase student demand, and institutional prestige may improve faculty hiring.
Many critics within higher education fear that the use of branding leads to a commodification
detrimental to fulfilling a larger public purpose (e.g., Hayes and Wynyard 2006). This is part
of the larger concern espoused by Slaughter and Rhoades (2004) about the threat to the public
purposes of institutions. Higher education has historically avoided explicit discussions of
1
I use the terms advertisement and commercial interchangeably in this study.
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
287
marketing and the adaptation of advertising strategies such as branding. Notwithstanding
these concerns, branding as a construct has been successfully utilized within higher
education, though such work has seen limited application to date (Sevier 2001; Toma et al.
2005). Typical uses of branding relate to admissions or the use of logos in higher education.
What little work that does exist on higher education branding is devoted to broad generalities
with few empirical studies on the current activities of universities to market themselves as a
brand (Fickes 2003; Lowrie 2006; Moore 2004).
With an appreciation for concerns about viewing higher education as a commodity, a
more apt parallel exists within the business literature for higher education scholars. The
research on firms that provide services presents a more applicable starting point for higher
education branding (see Mazzarol and Soutar 1999 for further discussion of this
connection). Applying branding to higher education is complicated by the fact that no
significant research exists on how to develop and communicate a service brand despite a
rather sizable body of empirical research on marketing service-oriented firms (Opoku
2005). The inherent individuality of providing a service and weighing the worth of that
service to a larger population is a key source of difficulty in this arena (De Chernatony and
Dall’Olmo Riley 1999; Firth 1993; Fitzgerald 1988). The value of Ritz-Carlton, Holiday
Inn, or Motel 6 is a result of an individual decision-making process weighing factors of
price, amenities, and location. In addition, consumer perceptions of quality form the basis
for assumptions about a range of hotel attributes from cleanliness to comfort to room
service. As a result, a real challenge exists in accounting for individual decision-making and
perceptions. This challenge suggests the value and necessity of applying what we know
about branding products to service organizations (Bateson 1995; Turley and Moore 1995).
As Zemsky et al. (2005) have argued, the same difficulty exists for higher education
consumers who must evaluate the quality and value of the services colleges and universities
provide both directly and indirectly. Parents and students consistently face difficulty in
comparing the services offered by higher education institutions despite the plethora of
rankings and guides that focus not only on the “Best Colleges,” but also the “Best Buy
Colleges,” attempting to balance price and quality.
In order to overcome the challenges of consumer preferences in service industries, the
organization itself becomes the brand with a distinct identity, personality, and image
(Onkvisit and Shaw 1989; Thomas 1978). Instead of branding a Big Mac or a Diet Coke,
colleges and universities brand themselves, giving us iconic brands such as Harvard,
Princeton, and Morehouse. In this scenario, the brand is further defined by the perception
and personality of the institution and relevant stakeholders. To use Weick’s (1995) concept,
the act of sensemaking between the university and consumer provides a foundation for the
ongoing relationship between the two entities. Universities are reliant upon external
audiences for support, and the brand can serve as a mediating force in these interactions.
Consumers react and respond to a brand particularly where values and beliefs are
embedded as is the case of higher education. Institutions (and their brands) and consumers
are both active agents negotiating with one another. This varied and changing relationship
between higher education and consumers can be mediated through the use of branding
strategies. As a result, branding in higher education must move beyond simply reaching out
to potential customers; it should also seek to establish relationships with all of the various
consumers in the state and region. Marketing efforts in higher education have focused on
potential students and parents for many years (Wasmer and Bruner 1999). The general
public, governments, and businesses all consume the knowledge, graduates, and economic
development generated by universities. As a result, institutions increasingly need to build
partnerships with these entities, which can be fostered through strategic branding activities.
288
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
Unfortunately, much of the research in this area focuses on the individual or consumer
perspective without exploring the role of the organization as an active agent in the
relationship. More importantly, a brand serves as the primary point of interaction between
the organization’s activities and the consumer’s perceptions as well as expectations (De
Chernatony and Dall’Olmo Riley 1998). These interactions are exceedingly complex with
numerous constituencies and consumers who have an interest in brand development and
implementation. Administrators, faculty, students, alumni, employers, and legislators are
among the many groups who are heavily invested in the institutional brand. These groups
are not only concerned about the success of the brand, but also serve as audiences for
branding strategies. As a result of these continuous interactions, higher education branding
is remarkably difficult to implement in a meaningful way for the diverse values of each
constituency.
The literature regarding the development of mission statements demonstrates the ways
institutions communicate with various constituencies (Carruthers and Lott 1981; Lang and
Lopers-Sweetman 1991; Newsom and Hayes 1991). The messages sent through mission
statements convey a sense of the values that colleges and universities wish to impart to
internal and external audiences (Morphew and Hartley 2006). The advertisements studied
here have an audience and substance similar to that of mission statements in that the
images, language, and symbols in the institutional bowl game commercials communicate
the values, beliefs, and priorities of the sponsoring university. However, the process for
creating the spots is not nearly as exhaustive as that which is typical for the development or
revision of mission statements (Lang and Lopers-Sweetman 1991). The strategic planning
steps used for mission statements can serve a valuable role in unifying constituencies
around common goals (Bean and Kuh 1984). University marketing efforts are more
representative of administrative goals for enrollment and institutional positioning than of
the goal of building broad-based consensus about institutional purpose and direction. As a
result, these advertisements are particularly useful in understanding the goals and values of
the university’s administration.
Conceptual Framework
In order to examine in this study how universities communicate messages and portray their
brand, I used the notion of brand personality from the consumer behavior literature (Aaker
1997; Aaker et al. 2001; Albanese 1989; Fournier 1998). Brand personality refers to the
“set of human characteristics associated with a brand,” and it serves a symbolic or selfexpressive function (Aaker 1997, p. 347). For example, the Walt Disney Company has
perfected its brand over the last seven decades as a provider of wholesome family
entertainment through movies, home videos, theme parks, and cruise ships. Nordstom’s
department stores have built upon a brand of sophistication and top-notch service. Visiting
Disneyland or shopping at Nordstrom’s evokes positive feelings in the consumer. Much of
the research on brand personality focuses on the self-expressive aspect of how consumers
use a brand and its personality to convey messages to others (Keller 1993; Kim et al. 2001).
However, most useful in this study is the potentially symbolic role that brand personality
may play. Marketing researchers suggest that brand personality can increase levels of trust
in a brand (Fournier 1994) as well as evoke an emotional response from consumers (Biel
1993). Furthermore, brands that do not have personalities struggle to build and grow
relationships with customers (Aaker and Joachimsthaler 2000).
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
289
Although the value of brand personalities is well established, the scholarly literature on
the subject is plagued by a lack of a systemic construct to analyze the idea. In an attempt to
remedy this deficiency, Aaker (1997) adapted the “Big Five” dimensions of human
personality from psychology—extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and openness to experience—to create a generalizable framework that can be applied across
product lines and populations. Her framework has been extensively debated and utilized
within the marketing literature (i.e., Austin et al. 2003). Similar to human personalities,
brand personalities are comprised of more specific traits that are used to classify the brand’s
personality. For example, Mercedes represents upper class, which is a trait that makes up
the sophistication brand personality. My data analysis uses this concept of brand traits to
examine the messages conveyed by institutions in their advertisements. The framework is
useful for studying the current status of a brand as well as future possibilities (Aaker 1997).
A brand personality should effectively communicate and in many ways embody core
institutional values. The existing research literature fails to address brands in higher
education as a significant strategy for communicating institutional values and beliefs. A
strong brand personality can provide a basis for colleges and universities to establish and
build upon existing relationships with external stakeholders (Blackston 1993).
Research Question and Methods
The purpose of this study was to explore how institutions made use of the 30-second
television spot during bowl games to present their institutional brand. The primary research
question guiding this work was: How do college and universities promote their institutional
brand to external audiences through the use of television spots during the football bowl
game season?
My initial sample consisted of 64 institutions that participated in bowl games during the
2006–2007 bowl season. However, my first analysis showed a demonstrable difference in
the quality and substance of the advertisements of universities from the major athletic
conferences, which have sufficient resources and television exposure to make an investment
in advertising, and the advertisements of smaller institutions, the games of which may be
televised only once or twice a year. Consequently, I selected a purposeful sample of 43
universities from the six athletic conferences (Atlantic Coast, Big 10, Big 12, Big East,
Pacific 10, and the Southeastern) that comprise the Bowl Championship Series. Thirty-eight
of these universities are public institutions. Appendix A contains a list of institutions
included in this study. These universities boast a significant television presence and
displayed evidence of marketing resources devoted to their commercials. The significant
financial resources and popularity of athletic programs formed an additional justification for
their inclusion in the study. I recorded each institution’s television spot on videotape before
converting to digital files to facilitate data analysis.
At the conclusion of the 2006–2007 bowl season, I coded the 43 commercials from the
selected universities for themes related to institutional branding. Guided by the concept of
brand personality traits, I used content analysis to identify each commercial’s visual and
narrative components. To complete this, I coded each commercial in its entirety focusing on
message elements such as the narration, music, images, characters, and scenes. An
inductive analytic approach was used to examine the patterns emerging from the data
(Strauss and Corbin 1998). The qualitative nature of this study required the subjectivity of
the researcher although intercoder reliability is important to achieve greater trustworthiness
290
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
(Rust and Cooil 1994). As a result, I asked a second researcher to separately code a subset
of ten commercials that elicited similar codes related to the conceptual framework.
As explained, the study focused on institutional advertising during bowl games. A
limitation of this approach is that some institutions use different commercials during other
football games or have alternate versions of their spots. Additionally, by focusing on the
mass audience available during football games, this study excludes other advertising outlets
and strategies that may help establish or augment institutional brand. However, the
symbolic and generally recognized importance of bowl games to both the institution and
television audience warrants a focus on these advertisements specifically.
Findings
Data analysis revealed five themes that formed the major aspects of the institutional
advertisements, as indicated in Table I.
Campus Characteristics
The characteristics of the campuses in this study formed a basic component of each
advertisement. Institutions highlighted aspects of their campuses by directly mentioning
them verbally or more often implicitly as part of the background. The size of the campus
was a selling point for both small and large institutions, seeking to convey the positive
features available to each. Images of campus appeared in twenty advertisements and
epitomized the popular conception of a college campus— red brick academic buildings,
tree-lined grassy quads, and students studying in solitude on a conveniently located bench.
One of the most powerful characteristics communicated was the sense of community and
Table I Five Major Themes and
Traits
Theme
Traits
Campus characteristics
•
•
•
•
Academics
•
Co-curricular engagement
Prestige building
Mission/purpose
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Size
Beauty
Community/family
Variety and uniqueness of academic
programs
Research conducted by faculty and
students
Contact with Faculty
Award winning, renowned faculty
Exciting and fun
Outdoor recreation
Intercollegiate athletics
Community service
Rankings
History/tradition
Cutting edge
Successful alumni
Help achieve dreams
Exploration
Economic development
Service to the state
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
291
even family that one joins upon becoming part of the institution. Whether one joins the
“Gator Nation” at the University of Florida or becomes a terrapin at the University of
Maryland, the sense of a larger community dominated many of the institutional
advertisements.
Academics
A refrain of nineteen institutions was “success beyond athletics,” highlighting the
juxtaposition between a football team playing in a nationally televised bowl game and a
serious academic organization. During their entire commercial, for example, the University
of Nebraska focused on optometry research showing a close-up of a person’s eye while the
University of Tennessee highlighted their unique forensic academy. Institutions used their
advertisement to highlight specific academic programs and research endeavors that
exhibited the significant academic activities taking place. Commercials were also used to
bring attention to new undertakings such as the emphasis on public health at the University
of Georgia, which recently opened a School of Public Health. Related to the messages of
serious academic programs and research activity is the depiction of intimate contact with
faculty members. Faculty images presented faculty members working with students in small
groups or classes. The University of South Carolina’s spot shows a faculty member and a
traditional-aged undergraduate intimately discussing the importance of simply “asking the
question.” Fourteen advertisements within this group touted faculty members as nationally
renowned in their research as validated by the number of awards and fellowships received
in recent years.
Co-Curricular Engagement
The theme of co-curricular activities represented a significant aspect of twenty-two institutional
advertisements. College life was depicted as exciting and fun rather than as time spent in boring
lectures or studying for finals in the library. There are organizations to join, friends to make, and
events to attend. Campuses are active places teeming with co-curricular opportunities to fit any
student’s interests. Student amenities were also included such as new dormitories, rock
climbing walls, or swimming pools in nineteen commercials. Institutions highlighted
particularly popular activities available on their campuses. Oregon State, for example,
highlighted the outdoor recreation possible in the woods of the Pacific Northwest while the
University of West Virginia showed an image of a crew team. Taking advantage of geographic
possibilities for outdoor activity formed a key trait to attract potential students.
In remarkable contrast to the academic message of “success beyond athletics,” five
institutions sought to communicate the opportunities to attend a school with big time
college athletics. Stadiums of screaming fans (and occasionally students) provided a scene
of an exciting American university with plenty to do on Saturday afternoons in the fall.
Three institutions moved beyond the fun and exciting environment to extol the virtues of
community service opportunities available to students.
Prestige Building
The pursuit of prestige increasingly has come to dominate the discourse and operations of
higher education (Brewer et al. 2002). Nine universities examined in this study sent
messages regarding their prestige using a number of internal and external validation
measures. The use of national rankings furthered assertions of prestige by demonstrating
292
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
that an external group corroborated the institution’s claim of quality. These references
often were vague, providing little direct reference or context. For example, Ohio State’s
advertisement prominently mentions that its dance program is ranked first in the nation,
but does not explain the ranking. (The graduate program was ranked first in the United
States and Canada by a trade publication.) Rankings were a significant feature of the
University of Iowa’s commercial, which listed the university’s “remarkable” achievements:
seven programs ranked in the top ten of their fields nationally, ranking as an educational
value, and 16th ranking in overall research funding. Big bold numbers flashed on the
screen in these advertisements, leaving no doubt of the emphasis on numerical rankings.
The mere mention of a “ranked” program apparently was perceived as sufficient
justification for the claim of success. The brand message implies that ranking ensures
credibility although the audience has little to no information upon which to base its
opinion of the validity of the rankings or the institution. The use of rankings served the
purpose of demonstrating the quality and prestige of the institution.
History and tradition are of tremendous value to colleges and universities (Thelin 2004).
Higher education consumers often equate history with prestige; thus institutions have an
incentive to make claims to long storied traditions. Not surprisingly, tradition appeared as
the most common element in thirty of the advertisements. References to tradition varied
from the central message of six of the advertisements to simply one of several smaller
elements This also confirms the earlier work of Tobolowsky and Lowery (2006), who
found honoring tradition a major theme of bowl commercials in their study. The “Senior
Walk” at the University of Arkansas formed the basis for its advertisement; the institution
portrays the walk as three miles of graduates including famous teachers, scientists, and
athletes. The baritone-voiced narrator describes the institution as “proudly embracing its
past” since the first seniors put their names in cement in 1876. The visual images of the
campus include students strolling across the walk surrounded by green grass and large oaks
while bold orchestral music plays in the background. The commercial clearly demonstrates
the importance that the institution gives to its history, alumni, and traditions.
A tension in marketing higher education institutions arises from the need to focus on
history and tradition while at the same time appearing innovative and on the cutting edge.
The advertisement of the University of California at Berkeley illustrates this tension by
citing its “long tradition of untraditional excellence” using scenes from the 1960s as well as
the famous 1982 football game between Stanford and Berkeley. The commercial moves
quickly between images demonstrating an exciting history and future potential. Sending the
message of a history-rich university conducting cutting edge research forms the core of
increasing institutional prestige.
Famous alumni and supporters of the institutions in this study were evident in nine
advertisements. The University of Southern California used its entire advertisement to
depict a range of alumni in a variety of fields to show its history of creating leaders. Just as
in many business advertisements, prominent celebrities served as spokespersons for their
alma maters. Oklahoma State University’s commercial features country singer Garth
Brooks attributing the success he has achieved with his connection to the university and
boasting of the potential benefits for students and parents alike. Rutgers University also
duplicates the approach of featuring prominent alumni, such as actor and Rutgers alumni
James Gandolfini. In the commercial, Gandolfini is shown speaking with fellow alumni and
famed chef Mario Batali. The overall theme of the commercial is “It all starts at Rutgers.”
The commercial conveys the message that the institution serves as the foundation for future
career success. It is evident that institutions hope that building prestige through the
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
293
utilization of national rankings, traditions, and successful alumni will provide an advantage
in improving their competitive position within the marketplace.
Mission/Purpose
The commercials did not directly deal with the issue of mission, yet they communicated
traits representative of their respective missions. A major focus of nineteen commercials
was on the private benefits that can occur by helping students achieve their dreams.
Whether the dream is the ability to get into a top graduate school or a Fortune 500
company, the university stands ready and willing to make that dream a reality. Higher
education also presents the opportunity for students to explore all of the possibilities
available through the plethora of academic and research endeavors underway. However,
these endeavors were not solely tied to student success. Three commercials touted the
economic successes of universities in creating new technologies and bringing new jobs to
the state. Particularly troublesome is that only four of the institutions in this study focused
in a serious way on their service functions within the state beyond economic development.
The overwhelming number of institutions in this study are public, yet that function of their
missions was largely missing in the messages conveyed through the bowl advertisements.
Discussion
In spite of the lofty ideals expressed in institutional mission statements (Morphew and
Hartley 2006), the messages conveyed through the institutional advertisements studied
focus on the private benefits leading to a commodification of higher education (Slaughter
and Rhoades 2004). Colleges and universities are sending a message of individual success
as a central component of their activities. Selling campus characteristics, academics, and cocurricular activities—and even outright fun—while neglecting the larger purposes of a
higher education leads to an escalation of student consumerism. This focus creates a selfperpetuating cycle of consumerism leading to the creation of an academic smorgasbord and
expensive student amenities, which in turn only causes more consumerism. Certainly
institutions should be responsive to student needs, but the larger principles expressed by the
institution also merit consideration in institutional decision-making.
There are challenges facing institutions as they communicate with external audiences.
History and tradition were major traits communicated by institutions in the study. In many
ways, these elements were used to promote the prestige and quality of the institution.
However, the history of higher education reflects the exclusion of persons and groups not
based upon academic ability but rather upon discrimination on the basis of gender, race, or
religion. History and tradition represent the worst of academe to these historically
underrepresented groups. Branding can help improve relationships, but only through the
use of proactive planning and strategy. Leveraging an institutional brand to strengthen
identity has the potential for encouraging a broader participation in the higher education
enterprise (Toma et al. 2005). This strategy takes advantage of the symbolic potential of
brand personalities. Specifically, the research on higher education branding and the results
of this study should cause institutions to examine the messages conveyed in their
advertisements. A focus on the messages that colleges and universities seek to
communicate as well as the larger implications of such messages should persuade
administrators to better evaluate and in many cases reconsider marketing efforts.
294
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
Conclusion
Perhaps the most telling and disconcerting conclusion of this work is the basic question:
What difference exists between institutions? If every institution is performing cutting edge
research, has famous alumni, a rich tradition of excellence, and is nationally ranked, how
are external audiences able to judge the quality of the institution (and its brand)? An
important role of branding and brand personality is to help differentiate products and sellers
in the marketplace. Higher education institutions, through the medium of televised
advertisements, have not been able to create a real distinctiveness between one another
despite the benefits of doing so (Townsend, Newell, & Wiese, 1992). Surely, in part this
conflict lies in the normative expectations that have created the American collegiate ideal
(Toma 2003). Consumers have only these expectations to rely upon for making their
decisions regarding higher education with the dubious nature of external validation such as
national rankings. Furthermore, branding has the yet unrealized potential to build
relationship and connection with external partners including underrepresented groups.
Additional research is needed to explore the impact of institutional messages on current and
future students. The literature should more fully address with empirical work the question
of what messages universities are sending to external audiences as well as the
organizational decision-making behind these commercials and other marketing outlets.
Without a better understanding of branding in the higher education market, institutions are
left to struggle in an ever-escalating marketing competition.
Appendix A: Institutions Included in Study
Arizona State University
Auburn University
Boston College
Clemson University
Florida State University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Kansas State University
Louisiana State University
Ohio State University
Oklahoma State University
Oregon State University
Pennsylvania State University
Purdue University
Rutgers University
Texas A & M University
Texas Tech University
University of Alabama
University of Arkansas
University of California at Berkeley
University of California at Los Angeles
University of Cincinnati
University of Florida
University of Georgia
University of Iowa
University of Kentucky
University of Louisville
University of Maryland
University of Miami
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota
University of Missouri
University of Nebraska
University of Oklahoma
University of Oregon
University of South Carolina
University of South Florida
University of Southern California
University of Tennessee
University of Texas
University of Wisconsin
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Wake Forest University
West Virginia University
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
295
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Aaker, D. A., & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.
Aaker, J. L., Benet-Martinez, V., & Garolera, J. (2001). Consumption symbols as carriers of culture: A study
of Japanese and Spanish brand personalities constructs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
81(3), 492–508.
Albanese, P. J. (1989). The paradox of personality in marketing: A new approach to the problem. In P. Bloom
(Ed.), Enhancing knowledge development in marketing (p. 245–249). Chicago, IL: American Marketing
Association.
Austin, J. R., Siguaw, J. A., & Mattila, A. S. (2003). A re-examination of the generalizability of the Aaker
brand personality. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(2), 77–93.
Bateson, J. E. G. (1995). Managing services marketing. London, England: Dryden Press.
Bean, J. P., & Kuh, G. D. (1984). Typology of planning problems. Journal of Higher Education, 55(1), 35–55.
Biel, A. (1993). Converting image into equity. In D. A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.), Brand equity and
advertising (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blackston, M. (1993). Beyond brand personality: Building relationships. In D. A. Aaker, & A. Biel (Eds.),
Brand equity and advertising (p. 113–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Blumenstyk, G. (2008, March 28). Some upstarts in NCAA Tournament are unconventional advertisers as
well. Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(29), A20.
Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the marketplace: The commercialization of higher education. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Bowen, W. G., & Levin, S. A. (2003). Reclaiming the game: College sports and educational values.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Brewer, D. J., Gates, S. M., & Goldman, C. A. (2002). In pursuit of prestige: Strategy and competition in U.S.
higher education. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Carruthers, J. K., & Lott, G. B. (1981). Mission review: Foundation for strategic planning. Boulder, CO:
National Center for Higher Education Management Systems.
De Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1998). Modeling the components of brand. European Journal of
Marketing, 32(11/12), 1074–1090.
De Chernatony, L., & Dall’Olmo Riley, F. (1999). Experts’ views about defining services brands and
principles of service branding. Journal of Business Research, 46(2), 181–192.
Fickes, M. (2003). Solving the mystery of branding. College Planning and Management, 6(3), 16–20.
Firth, M. (1993). Price and the value of a strong brand name. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 10(4), 281–386.
Fitzgerald, T. J. (1988). Understanding the differences and similarities between services and products to
exploit your competitive advantage. Journal of Service Marketing, 2(3), 25–30.
Fournier, S. (1994). A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategy brand management. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Florida.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research.
Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373.
Frank, T. (2000, October). The expanding university universe: Like it or not, private colleges are eyeing your
turf. University Affairs, 2(8), 18–20.
Grace, D., & O’Cass, A. (2005). Service branding: Consumer verdicts on service brands. Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services, 12(1), 125–139.
Gray, D. (1996). Sponsorship on campus. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(2), 29–33.
Hayes, D., & Wynyard, R. (2006). The McDonaldization of higher education. Charlotte, NC: IAP Press.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing consumer-based brand equity. Journal of
Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer
Research, 29(4), 595–600.
Kim, C. K., Han, D., & Park, S. (2001). The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand
loyalty: Applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research, 43(4), 195–
206.
Kirp, D. L. (2003). Shakespeare, Einstein, and the bottom line: The marketing of higher education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
296
Innov High Educ (2009) 33:285–296
Kittle, B. (2000). Institutional advertising in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9
(4), 37–52.
Lang, D. W., & Lopers-Sweetman, A. R. (1991). The role of statements of institutional purpose. Research in
Higher Education, 32(6), 599–624.
Lowrie, A. (2006). Branding higher education: Equivalence and difference in developing identity. Journal of
Business Research, 60(9), 990–999.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (1999). Sustainable competitive advantage for educational institutions: A
suggested model. The International Journal of Educational Management, 13(6), 287–300.
Moore, R. M. (2004). The rising tide: “Branding” and the academic marketplace. Change, 36(3), 56–61.
Morphew, C. C., & Hartley, M. (2006). Mission statements: A thematic analysis of rhetoric across institution
types. Journal of Higher Education, 77(3), 456–471.
Newsom, W. A., & Hayes, C. R. (1991). Are mission statements worthwhile? Planning for Higher
Education, 19(2), 28–30.
Onkvisit, S., & Shaw, J. J. (1989). Service marketing: Image, branding and competition. Business Horizons,
32(1), 13–18.
Opoku, R. A. (2005). Communication of brand personality by some top business schools online.
Unpublished thesis, Lulea University of Technology.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: University of Georgia
Press.
Rust, R. T., & Cooil, B. (1994). Reliability measure for qualitative data: Theory and implications. Journal of
Marketing Research, 31(1), 1–14.
Sevier, R. A. (2001). Brand as relevance. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(3), 77–96.
Slaughter, S., & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Market, state, and higher
education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How big-time college sports is crippling undergraduate education.
New York, NY: Henry Holt and Company.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing
grounded theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Thelin, J. R. (1996). Games colleges play: Scandal and reform in intercollegiate athletics. Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
Thelin, J. R. (2004). A history of American higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Thomas, D. R. E. (1978). Strategy is different in service businesses. Harvard Business Review, 56(4), 158–
165.
Tobolowsky, B. F., & Lowery, J. W. (2006). Commercializing college: An analysis of college representations
during bowl games. International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6(3), 232–242.
Toma, J. D. (2003). Football U.: Spectator sports in the life of the American university. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Toma, J. D., & Cross, M. E. (1998). Intercollegiate athletics and student college choice: Exploring the impact
of championship seasons on undergraduate applications. Research in Higher Education, 39(6), 633–661.
Toma, J. D., Dubrow, G., & Hartley, M. (2005). The uses of institutional culture: Strengthening identification
and building brand equity in higher education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Townsend, B. K., Newell, J. K., & Wiese, M. (1992). Creating distinctiveness: Lessons from uncommon
colleges and universities. Washington, DC: The George Washington University.
Turley, L. W., & Moore, P. A. (1995). Brand name strategies in the service sector. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 12(4), 42–50.
Wasmer, D. J., & Bruner III., G. (1999). The antecedents of the marketing orientation in higher education.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(2), 93–105.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). Remaking the American university: Market-smart and
mission-centered. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Zimbalist, A. S. (1999). Unpaid professionals: Commercialism and conflict in big-time college sports.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.